|
3
Nerd-Its
|
|
link
by After systematically avoiding the issue throughout his campaign, Mitt Romney dedicated an entire speech at the Bush Presidential Library to the subject.
Add a Comment (31)
Email This
Message Author
A friend turned me on to a review of Romney's speech in The Weekly Standard. I think it does a good job of critically looking at the speech on the basis of multiculturalism vs tolerance.
The LDS Church has a public relations feed on YouTube and one of the videos addresses the "Mormon politicians would be controlled by the Church" claim.
There are other videos on the Church's political neutrality, and the civic duty of Church members.
Brandon, you keep trying to revisit this point, but it's pretty much a non-starter.
It really doesn't matter what the policy is or what the "civic duty of church members" is. The basic problem is that LDS's "prophets" aren't conveniently dead, like the rest of Christianity.
If a Baptist minister stood up and said "God told me we must all vote for Mike Huckabee", even most of the Baptists would ignore him as the lunatic he is. On the other hand, if Gordon Hinckley declares "God says the US must invade Algeria", what are the faithful to do? Is he not "prophet, seer, and revelator"?
At its base, your whole argument boils down to "trust me, that won't happen". But your prophets have already made pronouncements that the rest of the world find unaccountable - and they've reversed themselves on issues like polygamy and racism. "Trust me" just doesn't cut it.
Would you break with the church if the prophets declared some revelation with which you disagree?
[Show/Hide]
[Reply]
1 Nerd-It
The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 10 December 2007
Early in the speech, Romney says,
He's referring, of course, to John F Kennedy in the 1960 presidential campaign. I find the comparison insulting.
Kennedy's message was, "Don't judge me by my religion, because my religious beliefs are private, and are simply not relevant to my capacity to be a good president." Romney's message? "I hate non-Christians as much as anybody."
I don't need to judge him by his religion. This one statement from the speech is plenty for me: "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom."
Really? Can he really believe that? They've got plenty of religion in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the like, but damn little of what we'd call freedom.
And freedom requires religion? Then why on earth would the authors of our constitutional freedoms have insisted that we must not make laws respecting the establishment of religion? Why would they have demanded that no religious test be required of those who would hold office? They knew damn well that what freedom requires is restraint of religion, and that religion is inherently opposed to freedom.
Romney's notion of the first amendment:
Well, he's invited us to compare him to Kennedy, let's see what Kennedy actually said:
Well, Mr Romney, you, too, are no Jack Kennedy.
This speech should be seen for what it is. It's an attempt by the Romney campaign to frame a message for the American religious extremists who think Romney's not Christian enough for them. Of course, in those terms, it's still an abject failure. These people want to tear down the wall of separation, so an appeal on those grounds is useless, and he can't actually address the issues they really care about, which are primarily doctrinal, because they're right. For example, Mormons are not trinitarians - as far as your basic Baptist evangelical wingnut can see, that's basically polytheism.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 10 December 2007
Oh, and to heap up the insults, he quotes John Adams to support himself:
Of course, before you make an appeal to authority, you ought to check that the authority actually agrees with you. Here are a few more Adams quotes:
Adams, like Jefferson, was a deist who rejected the divinity of Jesus. He'd certainly be no fan of Mr Romney, and he'd unquestionably be one of those "secularists" that Romney's trying to distance himself from.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 11 December 2007
Adams agrees with Romney sufficiently to support the sense in which he was quoted: Government cannot hope to succeed unless human passions are controlled by morality and religion. The U.S. constitution depends on such.
Whether or not Adams views the U.S. government as being divinely organized, thinks the original "revelation" of the Christian religion has been diluted by fables, tales and legends, or accepts the divinity of Jesus is irrelevant.
Adams, like Jefferson, was a deist who rejected the divinity of Jesus. He'd certainly be no fan of Mr Romney, and he'd unquestionably be one of those "secularists" that Romney's trying to distance himself from.
Unless Adams would apply some sort of religious test, I can see no reason he wouldn't be a "fan of Mr Romney." And I've seen nothing to make me believe he'd be one of those "seek[ing] to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God."
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 11 December 2007
Romney's message? "I hate non-Christians as much as anybody."
Please tell me you nabbed this from the Onion or some other satirical publication. You have absolutely nothing to back this statement up - either from the speech itself or from Romney's personal life.
Another example, which is not preposterous to the point of humor, but is still significant: Romney discussed the idea that freedom requires religion, yet you interpret this to mean he claims religion causes freedom, citing places with religion and little freedom as counterpoints. I'm not sure why you need me to point out the irrationality of this.
The message of the freedom/religion statements are clear: Without freedom, the people are not able to worship according to their desires, and without religion the value of freedom is compromised. You may not agree with the second half of that, but that's not the way you presented your argument.
This speech should be seen for what it is. It's an attempt by the Romney campaign to frame a message for the American religious extremists who think Romney's not Christian enough for them.
And in this sense it's very much the same as Kennedy's goals. The target audience is not religious extremists, however, but "mainstream" Christians. (Yes, their views might be extreme in your eyes, but they are not on the fringe of U.S. society by any means.) These Christians, in a general sense, do not understand the LDS church, and because of this they fear having a Mormon in the White House. Just as they feared the influence of the Pope in the 60s, they fear the influence of the LDS Church President today. Romney addressed these concerns, and I think did so as well as could be expected.
Yes, the doctrinal issues will not be disolved, but hopefully people will better understand Romney's ability to be both Mormon and an effective, independent President. Of course, this depends on them being able to take a step back and look at things objectively - rather than responding with the knee-jerk "I don't like him because he doesn't believe like me" response you seem to have adopted.
The usual hypocritical religious load of junk
One last thing - Where exactly is Romney being hypocritical? I know you think everything religious is categorically a "load of junk," so I see where you got that part of your title, but did you throw in the hypocritical bit just for good measure?
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by markmcb :: NR7 :: on 11 December 2007
Where exactly is Romney being hypocritical?
Isn't any politician who claims to be religious, but then says religion will not impact his ability to lead, hypocritical? I would at least respect him if he'd say, "yes, LDS drives my moral reasoning and my moral reasoning drives my decisions." Or if he said, "well, I'm an LDS poser, i.e., just like most 'religious' Americans who go to church because it seems like a good thing to do." At least those two statements are honest and make sense. But this constant rhetoric that implies he can flip a switch and somehow go from faith mode to politician is nonsense.
Being religious is like being pregnant, either you are or you aren't. He ought to choose what he is and stop tap dancing all the time.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 11 December 2007
Isn't any politician who claims to be religious, but then says religion will not impact his ability to lead, hypocritical?
The way I heard it, Romney's message wasn't that "being religious" will not affect his decision making, but that being of one particular religion will not compromise his ability to lead as compared to him being of another religion.
In other words, the manner in which Romney anticipates leading the country would be perfectly consistent with a Protestant, Catholic, Muslim or Jewish belief system.
The following quote from his speech is telling:
Notice he draws the line between the authority of LDS church leaders and presidential affairs, not between his own personal morals and decisions.
As for being either a devotee or a poser, I think it's obvious from his church service and current standing that he's the former. He addresses this concern in his speech, too:
Where do you see the tap dancing?
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by markmcb :: NR7 :: on 11 December 2007
Where do you see the tap dancing?
Consider two of the quotes you presented:
Doesn't the LDS church believe in "modern day revelation?" If so, are such revelations had by members of the LDS church? If so, are those people ever leaders in the church? I believe the answer to each of these is "yes," which is the cause of the issue I stated.
If leaders of LDS can amend the prescriptions of their faith, and Mitt Romney believes in LDS, then I think it naturally follows that he is under the influence of their leadership and revelations.
So, if the second quote above it true, I don't see how the first can be. If God reveals Himself through LDS authorities and Mitt believes in God, I don't see the separation. I don't think he can make his claims given the structure and beliefs of the LDS church.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 12 December 2007
Or, in other words, according to your logic, someone accepting LDS beliefs isn't able to make any promise. Romney couldn't honestly say he wouldn't join the circus over the weekend, much less claim he would run a country properly. If God up and changed his mind, who's to say he couldn't command just about anything, right?
But wait, isn't the same true for anyone? I mean, who's to say something other than God couldn't happen to bring about a situation in which almost any promise would be broken? I might promise/tell my wife I will pick up some bread today on the way home from work, but what if someone kidnaps our baby and end up choosing to deal with that situation and break my promise?
Now, you'll probably counter with how unlikely a scenario like that would be, but where was the consideration for probabilities in your analysis of the LDS doctrine of modern-day revelation?
The key, of course, is probabilities do matter. When I promise to pick up bread, it's because I can't think of anything that would get in my way. There are hundreds of situations, some in my control and some not, that might prevent it from happening, but it's likely everything will work out as usual and I'll show up at home this evening with a couple of loafs.
The question, then, is: In the LDS view, how likely is God to hand down a command that would prevent Romney from being an effective President?
My answer? About as likely as my son being kidnapped.
Before someone counters citing polygamy or Mountain Meadows as support, I urge the consideration of a recent interview on the Pew Forum entitled "Mormonism and Politics: Are They Compatible?" In it, Richard Bushman (an emeritus professor at Columbia University and author of several books about Mormon history) discussed the relationship between Mormon faith and U.S. politics and how it has developed over the past 200 years - specifically, it's "shift from 19th-century radicalism to 20th-century conservatism and the significance of this religious heritage for presidential candidate Mitt Romney." I highly recommend reading the entire interview, but here are some introductory excerpts:
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by markmcb :: NR7 :: on 12 December 2007
Um, I think this post completely missed my point. You're getting defensive about LDS, which I'm not attacking.
The question, then, is: In the LDS view, how likely is God to hand down a command that would prevent Romney from being an effective President?
No, that's not the question, but let's address it quickly. Probability is of no concern. It's a binary question, i.e., either God can hand down such an edict, or He can't. The answer with LDS is yes, He can.
To get back on track, the question: is Mitt Romney at all governed by other men on this planet? If so, there is an issue. One who believes in LDS believes in modern day revelations (MDRs). These MDRs are witnessed by men who update the LDS faith. This morphing religion is a concern.
I wouldn't trust any overly religious person in office. However, a classic Christian president and an LDS president are very different in their belief set. One goes to church to get an interpretation of a static text. The other does the same but is also subject to his church's leaders extending the rules due to MDR.
You can cite things until you're blue in the face, but this is a fundamental issue, not a detailed or specific one. Mitt Romney's adherence to the LDS faith demands his acceptance of church leaders' MDRs. He is a hypocrite if he says he can govern without church influence AND still be a member of the LDS church. As long as Mitt's church leaders are claiming to get messages from God and he is believing/following them, the two cannot mutually exist.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 12 December 2007
I understand that it is possible for a church that remains open to new revelation to go in any direction. Thus, I can see how the top-level, theoretical idea of MDR might worry you. But, this generality doesn't apply in all situations, and, by looking at the specifics of this particular situation, it is easy for me to see how Mitt could make the promises he did.
I ran across a decent list of these reasons why the LDS Church could not control Romney in office, and I think they are worth repeating here:
Given the above, I hope you can see how Mitt would be comfortable making the promises he did. I also hope you can see how theoretical generalizations sometimes don't fit the individual cases.
Lastly, I read a decent review of Romney's speech here that ended with the following:
I hope he's right.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 11 December 2007
Actually, I think there really is a middle road, there. The one candidate I know who's taken a stance on religion of which I can approve is Obama, who said in his biography:
Democracy isn't supposed to be dividing up into factions and seeing who can muster enough votes. It's supposed to be reasoned debate, in which we convince each other of the merits of one stance over the other. The religious stance - where one invokes scripture or dogma and refuses to budge - subverts the goals of democracy.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 11 December 2007
You have absolutely nothing to back this statement up - either from the speech itself or from Romney's personal life.
Nope. I take it from the speech itself. I don't really think he hates non-Christians, but I do think he wants the religious extremists to whom the message was directed to think so.
The message was not targeted at religious moderates or "mainstream" Christians. Romney's base is religious conservatives, and he lives or dies by the extremist fundie vote, which is currently supporting Huckabee. Their most vocal faction are the Baptists who are insisting "Mormons ain't real Christians", and the point of the speech was to try to suggest that, even though he may have doctrinal differences, their goals were the same.
The speech was laced with phrases that make this clear. The bit where he talks about Americans who "tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world" is clearly aimed at the extremists, as Americans are tired of those who use religion to push bigoted agendas.
Throughout the speech, he panders constantly to the fundies...
Here, he's very obviously pandering to the kind of extremists who want prayer in schools, creationism in the science classroom, and the ten commandments on the courtroom walls. Religious moderates do think religion has no place in public life.
This is code for, "I plan to appoint activist judges who will protect religious interests over secular ones." Another message aimed straight at the fundies, who are terrified that, even though the court is already packed with right-wing sympathizers, they might actually realize that demanding schoolchildren recite "One Nation, Under God" really is unconstitutional.
Romney discussed the idea that freedom requires religion, yet you interpret this to mean he claims religion causes freedom, citing places with religion and little freedom as counterpoints. I'm not sure why you need me to point out the irrationality of this.
I'm afraid I do. His statement was, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."
Yet, freedom endures in the Scandinavian countries where religious belief is almost nonexistent, and religion endures in the Muslim countries of the Middle East, where freedom is mostly absent. So, it's quite obvious that neither one supports the other.
To the contrary, it's precisely the religious fervor that has so suppressed freedom in the Middle East, and it's precisely the restraint of religious fervor that protects our freedoms here and in the other liberal democracies.
Religion certainly benefits from freedom - ask any Christian living in Saudi Arabia, and compare their experience to one living in Sweden. But freedom is harmed by religious expression - it must tolerate it, in order to remain freedom, but there's no benefit at all to be derived from it.
Of course, this depends on them being able to take a step back and look at things objectively - rather than responding with the knee-jerk "I don't like him because he doesn't believe like me" response you seem to have adopted.
Actually, I've been quite neutral on Romney up until this speech. I knew he was a religious conservative, and thus unlikely to share many of my values, but I certainly didn't hold his Mormonism against him - nor do I. The problem isn't that he's a Mormon, the problem is that he puts religion ahead of secular society.
Any man who steps up to the microphone and says "freedom requires religion", and denigrates the value of secularism, declares himself unfit for the office, so far as I'm concerned.
One last thing - Where exactly is Romney being hypocritical?
It's hypocritical to compare yourself with JFK and then deliver the completely opposite message. It's hypocritical to praise religious freedom and then denounce secularism. It's hypocritical to talk about how terrible it is that Europe's beautiful cathedrals are so empty due to their increasing disregard for religion, but then insist that "freedom requires religion".
The best thing about this is that it might further split the fundamentalist vote between him and Huckabee, who's even more of a religious lunatic.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 12 December 2007
I don't really think he hates non-Christians, but I do think he wants the religious extremists to whom the message was directed to think so.
You didn't originally place that condition on the statement, but I'll except you probably typed it in the heat of the moment.
In any case, I agree the speech was directed to those who consider Romney "not a real Christian," however it's difficult for me to dub all those ascribing to such thought as "extremist fundies." Perhaps it's because I live in the Bible belt, but just about every Protestant I know believes I belong to a cult. Many of their churches have actually published official statements supporting such sentiment. If all of them are fundies, who are the "religious conservatives?"
Although, I disagree with your labeling of the target audience, overall I agree with your assessment of the speech's purpose - although I think such is far from revelatory. In Romney's speech on his faith, he was primarily addressing those with concerns about his faith whose votes he needs. (Gasp!) Romney giving a speech dedicated to resolve ill-conceived or misguided concerns in a language with which the target will identify seems perfectly reasonable.
You, however, seem unable to see through the careful wording to the root meanings. You say he is "pandering" on one hand (which implies insincerity) and then assume Romney is the biggest fondie of them all on the other. Rather, Romney is simply a religious man with whom you disagree on obvious and well-documented issues. He, like all other religious people, finds moral value in religion. He, like all of the other candidates of either party, won't advocate taking "In God We Trust" off of U.S. coins or removing "Under God" from the Pledge. He, like me, thinks you are too quick to ascribe any good done in the name of religion to something else and any bad done in the name of religion to nothing else.
But, you probably knew all of this before you read/heard his speech on faith. What changed then? As far as I can tell, Romney's catch phrase that "freedom requires religion" ticked you off and now he's unfit for office all of the sudden. I mean, who knows what sort of damage someone of that opinion could do as the leader of the free world ... :-| (severe sarcasm face)
he puts religion ahead of secular society ... denigrates the value of secularism
You seem stuck on Romney's opinion of secularism, so perhaps we should review what he said on the subject, exactly. He mentions the word only once (emphasis added):
Romney's point is simple: He doesn't see the separation of church and state as implying one interpretation of secularism. Again, I see how you might disagree, but you knew that before the speech.
It's hypocritical to compare yourself with JFK and then deliver the completely opposite message.
The messages seem almost identical to me. JFK was a Catholic seeking the vote of the mainstream Protestants, and Romney is a Mormon doing the same.
It's hypocritical to praise religious freedom and then denounce secularism.
Hardly. The secularism he mentions is exactly the removal of freedom to express anything religious in the public domain.
It's hypocritical to talk about how terrible it is that Europe's beautiful cathedrals are so empty due to their increasing disregard for religion, but then insist that "freedom requires religion".
I don't follow you.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 12 December 2007
Arg.
but I'll except you probably
A-C-C-E-P-T
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 12 December 2007
You didn't originally place that condition on the statement, but I'll except you probably typed it in the heat of the moment.
The difference between "I hate non-Christians" and "I want people to think I hate non-Christians" is pretty marginal. In any case, the message - what he wanted those people to hear - was "I hate non-Christians".
In any case, I agree the speech was directed to those who consider Romney "not a real Christian," however it's difficult for me to dub all those ascribing to such thought as "extremist fundies."
I think you missed what I was saying. The speech wasn't aimed at just anyone who happens to think he's "not a real Christian". It was aimed at a specific group of extremist Christians. The ultra-conservative bible-thumping types. If he can't get them into his "base", he's got no chance. He and Huckabee are trying to compete for the same ecological niche.
Romney's gotten a lot of negative attention from these (mostly Baptist) groups who are the primary voices behind the "Romney's not a real Christian" opposition to him. They're pulling the fundie vote away from him and towards Huckabee. That was the whole point of the political exercise.
Romney giving a speech dedicated to resolve ill-conceived or misguided concerns in a language with which the target will identify seems perfectly reasonable.
That's fine, but the rest of us are listening. I don't give a damn about Romney's doctrinal purity, since the whole thing's a load of hogwash. But I do care about the president's commitment to secular values - the most fundamental of which is separation of church and state. And specifically, that separation means that the church must not have influence over the state. I know that, as a religious person, that probably sounds somehow wrong to you, but that's what the secular value truly is.
For example, the first and foremost (maybe the only) reason that churches can lose their tax exempt status is by meddling in the affairs of state - if a church endorses a candidate, the IRS can revoke their tax-exempt status. That reflects the goal - no influence on the state by the church.
You say he is "pandering" on one hand (which implies insincerity) and then assume Romney is the biggest fondie of them all on the other.
I do say he's "pandering" - I think he's a reasonably intelligent man and he seems pretty sincere, so I think the effort to suck up to the religious extremists requires him to be insincere. However, he very clearly is a very socially conservative person, too, so he finds it easier to be insincere by sucking up to the religious extremists than by sucking up to social liberals.
I don't think he's the same kind of religious extremist that he's trying to attract. Nor do I think you are. I think you're both poisoned by the delusions fostered by a religious system you had the bad fortune to be born into, though.
What changed then? As far as I can tell, Romney's catch phrase that "freedom requires religion" ticked you off and now he's unfit for office all of the sudden.
I haven't really paid a lot of attention to him, up to now. Since this speech was specifically about his attitude towards religion, and that's something I find important, it made my radar. And it made my mind up about him.
It's not that I was particularly likely to vote for him before. But I do like to keep an open mind. He proved my suspicions with his assertion that "freedom requires religion".
Part of the reason I've ignored him is that he's not really likely to get the nomination. The futures markets have him sitting at about 21%. And by the way, he took a pretty substantial hit after his speech - he lost about 3.5 points between 12/7 and 12/10, though he's mostly regained it now.
Unless something really dramatically changes, Giuliani will win the Republican nomination, Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and Clinton will win the election.
I mean, who knows what sort of damage someone of that opinion could do as the leader of the free world
Let's see, what would a country look like if its leader believed that religion was required of its people? Well, we haven't seen many of those in the West since the Enlightenment, so the only modern examples are countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Historically, we might look to the Thirty Years War to see how such countries might behave towards their neighbors. One wonders, too, what the life of a non-Mormon might have been like in the State of Deseret.
You seem stuck on Romney's opinion of secularism, so perhaps we should review what he said on the subject, exactly.
You quoted exactly the part where he turns his speech into the opposite of Kennedy's. JFK's message was exactly that religion is "a private affair with no place in public life". Romney's is that it's not. I think Romney's view is wrong. Furthermore, I think it's anti-democracy.
Romney's view of secularism is that it's something like a religion, and one that's opposed to the tenets of his own. I think he's completely wrong there, too. And moreover, if he does think that, then what the hell is he doing running for the office of the President of the US? This is a country that's explicitly founded as a secular country and explicitly not founded as a religious one. If he thinks secular values are a religion opposed to his own, then he's got no place running for secular office at all.
Romney says, "The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square." In fact, that's not true. Men like Adams (who Romney quoted in the speech) and Jefferson did not believe that the deity had any hand in the day-to-day affairs of men, and thus, had no meaningful role in the public square.
In a letter to Jefferson, dated 16 July, 1814, Adams wrote:
The following summer, on 20 June, he wrote to Mr Jefferson again:
The whole notion that the founders did not want the public square to be free from religious influence is a pernicious lie - but it's one firmly believed by the extremist groups to whom the speech was ultimately addressed.
JFK was a Catholic seeking the vote of the mainstream Protestants, and Romney is a Mormon doing the same.
JFK was seeking the vote of the mainstream Protestants. Romney is not. Romney is seeking the votes of fundamentalist extremists.
The secularism he mentions is exactly the removal of freedom to express anything religious in the public domain.
Religious views have no place in the public domain for exactly one reason: they run counter to the principles of democratic society.
I quoted Obama elsewhere in this thread, and I'll do it again:
I think he has it exactly right. You might want something for religious reasons, but you must translate those into universal - that is, secular - values. Otherwise, you're just trying to act the bully - opposing freedom, not supporting it.
Religious reasons are meaningless in the public square. That's why they've no place there. Pretending that "secularism" is some kind of anti-Mormon (or anti-Christian) religion is dishonest sophistry.
It's hypocritical to talk about how terrible it is that Europe's beautiful cathedrals are so empty due to their increasing disregard for religion, but then insist that "freedom requires religion".
I don't follow you.
Europe remains free. In many ways, Europe is overtaking the US in basic freedoms. If Europe's churches are empty, if they've given up their religion, and if "freedom requires religion", then Europe should be losing its freedoms.
But Romney manages to lament the loss of religion in a place that obviously still has its freedom, and then claims that "freedom requires religion". Hypocrisy.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 12 December 2007
In any case, the message - what he wanted those people to hear - was "I hate non-Christians".
I still don't see it. I think the message he wanted those people to hear is, "You don't need to worry about having a Mormon President." Or, "You are big enough to judge me based on me, not on my religion." Something along those lines.
The speech ... was aimed at a specific group of extremist Christians.
This doesn't make sense to me, though. In order for a group to be important enough for a politician to need their votes, they have to be big. And, by definition, isn't a large/populous group the majority, not the extreme? In other words, who you're describing as "extremist Christians" I see as mainstream. Perhaps you're speaking theologically (i.e., they're extreme in their beliefs) and I'm speaking numerically (i.e., they make up the majority of Christians in the U.S.).
That's fine, but the rest of us are listening. I don't give a damn about Romney's doctrinal purity, since the whole thing's a load of hogwash.
I think Romney did about as decent a job as I could expect in making a speech, given his goals. I'm not sure how he could have hoped to appeal to both "campy Christians" and secularists at the same time.
I mean, who knows what sort of damage someone of that opinion could do as the leader of the free world.
Let's see, what would a country look like if its leader believed that religion was required of its people?
Now I think I see why you are so upset about the statement and I'm not (and also why your argument about Europe doesn't make any sense to me). You see a connection to the idea of religion being required by the government, while I see it as being a reasonably offshoot of all people being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." This statement is fundamental to the establishment of the type of freedom we enjoy in the U.S., and while you may argue the founders were Deists, the concept can still be rightly dubbed as "religious" in nature. I don't think Romney is saying much more than that.
Romney's view of secularism is that it's something like a religion
I don't agree. I think he spoke of some people pushing a religion of secularism, but I don't think this means he doesn't understand the secular nature of political office. In fact, I don't think he would have too big of a problem with Obama's quote. I know I don't.
I think it's completely possible, however, for a judge to have a copy of the Ten Commandments or some verse from the Koran above his desk and to take the wisdom gleaned from them and apply it secularly. Thus, something "acknowledging God" is allowed in the public sphere, while church and state remain separated.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 15 December 2007
In order for a group to be important enough for a politician to need their votes, they have to be big.
The Christian extremists have long been an important part of the Republican party's strategy. They are a large-ish group, a little over 10% of the American electorate self-identify as "evangelical" or some similar label, and if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the less extreme members of that group are roughly counter-balanced by extremists who choose other labels (like "Catholic", or "Baptist", rather than "evangelical"), then it's big. When you compound that with the fact that they almost exclusively vote Republican, they account for almost a quarter of the people eligible to vote in the upcoming primaries. More than that, individually, they're more likely to vote at all than the typical American, so that magnifies their effect even more.
The candidate who can most successfully garner their votes has a significant advantage. Giuliani realizes he's not got much hope with them, and has been focused on the rest of the voters - quite successfully, which is why he's ahead. But when the time comes to actually vote, if Huckabee or Romney can sufficiently motivate their lunatic base, it could make all the difference.
Their real problem is that their splitting the lunatics between them. Huckabee isn't a viable candidate for the non-religious part of the Republican base - he's just too nuts. Romney can appeal to that group, but he's having trouble pulling in the extremists, who are going to Huckabee purely because he's a Baptist minister, and they're put off by Romney's Mormonism.
That was the whole purpose of the speech: to reach out to Huckabee's religious base, and try to counteract the split.
You see a connection to the idea of religion being required by the government, while I see it as being a reasonably offshoot of all people being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
But that's not what the word "required" means. Romney didn't say religion was a nice thing for those who want it, he said "freedom requires religion". Here's the AHD on usage for "require":
Plants require sunlight - they die without them. Students are required to attend classes. They face disciplinary action if they don't. When something is "required", it's either necessary, in the sense that it's impossible for it to be otherwise, or it's obligatory or compulsory.
In the case of "freedom requires religion", the former sense is clearly false - my argument about Europe specifically shows that. We're left with the latter sense, which I find beyond offensive.
I credit Romney with enough intelligence to recognize that there are free countries that have little religion, and that there are deeply religious countries that have little freedom. In fact, that's the rule, not the exception. I therefore judge that this is part of his strategy to reach out to those who see a theocratic, Christian government in America as a desirable goal.
I think it's completely possible, however, for a judge to have a copy of the Ten Commandments or some verse from the Koran above his desk and to take the wisdom gleaned from them and apply it secularly.
I don't. I've pointed it out before. The Ten Commandments have virtually no overlap with US law. Those elements that do coincide long predated their codification as "commandments". So a judge who looks to those sources for guidance is almost certainly going to be improperly biased.
There was a case in Australia recently where two couples met on a camping holiday. During their time together, they ended up arguing over evolution vs creation - one couple were biologists. After some late night drinking, the creationist stabbed and killed the evolutionist. The judge sentenced him to the minimum possible punishment (five years, with the possibility of parole in three) because he decided, "the offender is a person of good character".
That's the kind of decision we should expect to get from a judge who regularly consults the bible for guidance.
Thus, something "acknowledging God" is allowed in the public sphere, while church and state remain separated.
In the public sphere, "acknowledging" gods cannot possibly be anything more than an undeserved appeal to authority. Until the gods deign speak in the public sphere for themselves, there's no reason to believe we're hearing their intentions and not those of their self-appointed representatives.
That's at least partly the point of the Obama quote. The public "acknowledgements" really just seek to lend weight to religious arguments. When someone argues that "abortion is murder", standing in front of a religious diorama depicting the Ten Commandments, the listeners are reminded to take their religious biases into account - without him even having to say so. That runs directly counter to the ideal expressed by Obama. It's biased and it's contrary to democratic principles.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 18 December 2007
I think you are oversimplifying the definition of "required." There is no reason his statement couldn't mean what I previously outlined - that the recognition of inherent worth in a person to the degree necessary for the freedom we enjoy requires some sort of religious belief.
Of course, I'm sure you disagree, in that you think the same freedom-giving morals are possible without any religious belief, but you're trying to turn anyone who accepts a religious belief as contributing to freedom as being the next Constantine. Rather, it still is quite obvious to me this sort of thought could easily lead to a Constitution much like our own.
That's the kind of decision we should expect to get from a judge who regularly consults the bible for guidance.
Talk about not being able to distinguish the exception from the rule...
In the public sphere, "acknowledging" gods cannot possibly be anything more than an undeserved appeal to authority.
I disagree. It could be something as simple as displaying a traditional celebratory emblem on a religious holiday, or a snippet of text reminding a judge of some principle or tenant. Neither is a claim to be an instrument of God.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 18 December 2007
I think you are oversimplifying the definition of "required."
And I think you're making up your own definition to defend this guy just because he's a Mormon.
the recognition of inherent worth in a person to the degree necessary for the freedom we enjoy requires some sort of religious belief.
This is exactly the belief for which I condemned him. It's not necessary, and declaring it so is an attempt to marginalizes the one in five Americans who claim no such belief.
It's the same sentiment George H.W. Bush's expressed, during his campaign, when he said, "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Romney may very well have meant, as you say, that "the recognition of inherent worth in a person ... requires ... religious belief." That's not deserving of my vote. Scorn, yes. Opprobrium, yes. In other words, it's deserving of exactly the reaction I had.
Talk about not being able to distinguish the exception from the rule...
I didn't say that the judge in question had consulted the bible. I offered that case, as I said, as an example of "the kind of decision we should expect to get from a judge who regularly consults the bible."
Why should I not? What distinguishes the bible-loving judge from a proper, secular judge? What distinguishes religious morality from secular morality?
A judge who does not consult his bible, and sticks to the law, will punish murderers, thieves and frauds, together with many sorts of offenders not indicated in scriptures. With a bible-consulting judge, the best we could hope for is that he'd do the same.
However, if he's really consulting that thing for guidance, then how can he not treat Christians who come before him differently than non-Christians? After all, how can he be impartial towards someone who flagrantly chooses not to "honor the Sabbath and keep it holy"? Or one who has a statue of Ganesha in his home?
How can he not consider be more lenient towards a devout Christian in his court than towards a non-believer?
It could be something as simple as displaying a traditional celebratory emblem on a religious holiday, or a snippet of text reminding a judge of some principle or tenant. Neither is a claim to be an instrument of God.
Nobody would really care if the judge consulted the tenet "thou shalt not murder", but one questions why he's consulting that instead of the relevant statute. But the judge who consults "you shall have no other gods before me" must be condemned in the harshest terms.
So clearly there must be some consideration as to what forms of "acknowledging the gods" are permissible. And guess which ones make the cut? The ones that are clearly secular values co-opted by religion - like prohibitions against murder, and efforts to foster community cooperation (the whole community, not just the community of believers). So why should we want the religious expression of these things, when we have perfectly good secular ones?
Put it another way, what is the secular value of these "acknowledgements"? Why should I value them? Why should a Buddhist value a statue commemorating the ten commandments?
Who benefits from them? I can clearly see how religion benefits, but I don't see how secular society benefits. What I see is how secular society is hurt by them. They establish an undeserved bias in favor of religion.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 26 December 2007
you're making up your own definition
I don't need a fake definition to be able to identify with how someone might see religious morality as a required basis for democracy.
You understand my point, though, and you still seem to think this is worthy of your reaction, so I'll move on.
said, as an example of "the kind of decision we should expect to get from a judge who regularly consults the bible." Why should I not?
Because you cannot show a cause and effect relationship.
How can he not consider be more lenient towards a devout Christian in his court than towards a non-believer?
That's quite a ridiculous question. The answer: The same way an atheist could not be less lenient towards a believer.
So clearly there must be some consideration as to what forms of "acknowledging the gods" are permissible.
Agreed.
Who benefits from them?
I don't think I can answer this in a general sense. Even if I could, I don't think it matters.
What I see is how secular society is hurt by them. They establish an undeserved bias in favor of religion.
Hurting secular society? Establishing a bias in favor of religion? It's like you're speaking a different language - like there is some world-wide game/contest going on.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 27 December 2007
Wow. I swear some days you just get intentionally obtuse.
I don't need a fake definition to be able to identify with how someone might see religious morality as a required basis for democracy.
Yet you invented one. You took "freedom requires religion" and turned the meaning of "requires" into something like "can peacefully coexist with".
The statements "freedom requires religion" and "freedom does not require religion" cannot both be true. I assert that the latter is the true statement, and the former is a falsehood, designed to show the speaker's willingness to align himself politically with those religious extremists in America who have deluded themselves into thinking that secular ideals are bad.
Because you cannot show a cause and effect relationship.
I needn't show its existence, only its plausibility. If it's plausible, it could happen, and if it does happen, it's a bad thing. If we prohibit the scenario in which it's plausible, we're better off.
That's quite a ridiculous question. The answer: The same way an atheist could not be less lenient towards a believer.
Not the same. Christianity believes that the gods show preference towards believers, and that those who support the faith are rewarded. Atheists do not.
In my case, I probably would be somewhat biased against a believer, on the grounds that their rationality is somewhat questionable, but I'm a particularly strong form of atheist. That's not necessarily true of atheists in general. Nor does the rationality of the defendant have a great deal to do with most cases.
I certainly wouldn't consider an atheist to be inherently of better moral character than a believer - but I certainly expect a strongly theist judge, one who consults scripture for guidance in court, to do so. And the moral character of the defendant is a factor in virtually every sentencing decision. Defendants who are given the benefit of the doubt because they're thought to be generally good people who've made a bad mistake are given leniency. Those who are thought to be incorrigible are given harsher treatment. I would expect the bias of the theist judge to show in his sentencing.
So clearly there must be some consideration as to what forms of "acknowledging the gods" are permissible.
Agreed.
Except that you missed the conclusion that none of them should be permissible.
I don't think I can answer this in a general sense. Even if I could, I don't think it matters.
I can, and did answer it. Who benefits are the believers, at the expense of the non-believers. When a pro-choice speaker must make his case standing in front of a religious symbol, he's starting from a disadvantage. An anti-abortionist in the same position gains an advantage. That advantage is inappropriate. The symbol has hurt our secular ideals.
Hurting secular society? Establishing a bias in favor of religion? It's like you're speaking a different language - like there is some world-wide game/contest going on.
Absolutely. The fact that almost 80% of Americans claim to be Christians gives an inherent bias towards Christianity in many things. It's why prayer in school is such a contentious issue, for example. Why should we not be able to hold a short prayer before the public high school's football game? After all, most of the people here are Christians? That's the line of thought - but that's exactly the line of thought that the Supreme Court dismissed as invalid.
The football game at a public high school is a community event. To hold a specifically Christian ceremony at the start is to explicitly exclude the non-Christians from the community. It sends a clear signal that the Christians are part of a special "in" group, and that the others are outsiders. That's how the court saw the issue.
The reasoning is much broader, though. When the government chooses to display Christian symbolism in courtrooms or legislature halls, or really any official venue, it's acting in a way that excludes non-Christians from full participation in government.
When you see a statue representing the ten commandments, apparently, you see something you agree with wholeheartedly. When I see them, I see something that I think is 50% bad advice, 20% indifferent, and the other 30% is something that's already represented in government without the statue.
There is a strong bias in favor of Christianity in America - simply because there are a lot of Christians. But it's a significant part of the government's role to protect the rest of us from that bias.
Today, the non-Christian segment of society is finally growing large enough that we're really heard when we complain. When you hear the neo-con pundits whining about how Christians are being persecuted in modern society, and how there's a "war on Christmas", and that kind of nonsense, what you're really hearing is that people are finally rejecting the dominance that Christianity has had on the public sphere for so long, and they're afraid of that.
Secular society is hurt when we require that high school students be indoctrinated with useless rubbish like "intelligent design", simply to placate the absurd dogmas of the religious. It's hurt when bible thumping judge is lenient towards a violent criminal because he comes to court with a crucifix and a bible and praises Jesus in every other sentence. And it's hurt when the government displays the symbols and icons of a religion.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by agentcdog :: NR3 :: on 21 December 2007
So here's the problem with this whole rhetoric... People complain about how wikipedia is flawed because it is open... and they might be right -- in a rhetorical sense. In practical application, they are dead wrong. Experience is just way more powerful than rhetoric. What does experience teach us? Wikipedia is damn useful, and Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, etc. have not gone off the deep end. They are pretty much normal guys.
What about when the prophet says "Do This, says God!"? Good question. What happened when the LDS church encouraged its people to vote against the repeal of prohibition? The members voted their conscience and repealed prohibition.
The reason has a certain subtlety that will probably be lost on many of you. The LDS church actually actively promotes thinking on the part of its members.
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 22 December 2007
I assume you meant to respond to my other post, below - this one has nothing to do with the "undue influence of the church" theme. This post was simply my assessment that the speech represented a Romney's attempt to suck up to the religious extremists by dismissing the non-Christians.
But, to answer your point, since I don't know the details, I don't know to what degree LDS "encouraged" its people to vote against the repeal of prohibition.
Was it the prophets saying it was the will of the god? I doubt it. If it wasn't, then it's not a relevant example.
Again, LDS claims to believe in ongoing divine revelation, with specific people believed to have this power. So far as I'm concerned, Hinckley is an ordinary old man. In my more cynical moments, I think he's a fraud. The rest of the time I think he's a deluded fool. But the LDS believes he has a direct channel to their god.
Why should I not be concerned that this fool or fraud can influence Romney - or any other Mormon holding public office - in inappropriate ways? Fraud or fool, Hinckley speaks only for himself, but LDS members claim to think otherwise.
I understand how it is that Wikipedia manages to achieve decent quality standards despite the open-access approach. I know what causes the vandalism, and I know what causes it to get fixed. I've reverted a few articles myself, and I can see how the whole mechanism is supposed to work.
The Romney situation isn't the same - the mechanism isn't transparent. I can see the existence of a potential source of conflict, and I don't see a natural solution. You (and Brandon) both offer nothing more than "trust us".
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 26 December 2007
Why should I not be concerned that this fool or fraud can influence Romney - or any other Mormon holding public office - in inappropriate ways?
For the same reason you aren't concerned about your wife smothering you in your sleep: Although she could do it - and might even have motivation to do it - there is no reason to suspect she would do it.
You degrade this reasoning as being "nothing more than trust," but what else would you expect? No one can guarantee the actions of other free agents. I mean, an elected atheist could fall in the tub, endure some odd head trauma, and go off the deep end. Better not vote for him! :|
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by scottb :: NR7 :: on 27 December 2007
Again, Brandon, you've missed the point. I have a fairly good mental model of my wife's behavior. A fair picture of what she believes, what she wants, and how her thought processes work. With that, I can ask myself questions like, "Is she likely to smother me in my sleep?" And I can feel comfortable with my answers.
Even with the usual Christian candidates - with the exception of Mike Huckabee - the models don't have to deal with the possibility that "divine revelation" will bring about a radical change in them. Sure - one of them might really go insane and start having visions, but it's not an intrinsic part of their world view. Their canon is closed - their god doesn't talk to modern day prophets.
Mitt Romney, you, and Gordon Hinckley, are Mormons. You seem believe firmly in a religion that appears to much of the rest of the world to have been cooked up by a con man for his own benefit.
I find that general belief, along with many of the detailed aspects of it, completely inexplicable. There's no sensible model in which you can conclude that those beliefs are reasonable, but not also come to an almost arbitrary range of other absurd conclusions. I have no model for Hinckley's thought processes that rule out him doing something I'd consider insane, like maybe reversing the church's 1978 policy change with regard to blacks, because, to me, his thinking most definitely does not follow the "reasonable" paths.
No, wait - I do have one model in which his thought processes follow predictable paths: the cynical one in which he really is the true successor of a con man. The one in which he knows it's all bullshit. But in that model, it's even more likely he'd seek to influence a Mormon president inappropriately.
No one can guarantee the actions of other free agents.
Here, I think you partly hit on the trouble.
What we're questioning is whether he can legitimately be considered a "free agent", or whether the Mormon beliefs of ongoing revelation and the status of church leaders as prophets negates that.